Kavanaugh hearings: This is Why I Could Not Be a SCOTUS Justice [VIDEO]

Kavanaugh hearings: This is Why I Could Not Be a SCOTUS Justice [VIDEO]

Kavanaugh hearings: This is Why I Could Not Be a SCOTUS Justice [VIDEO]

No, it’s not because I don’t have a JD. I thought about going to law school using my post-9/11 GI Bill money, but then I remembered I hate school, I already have a graduate degree, and I hate school. Oh, and I also hate school. Aside from my lack of legal credentials, I would never get past the confirmation hearings, because some of the questions some of the Senators asked in the three days of Brett Kavanaugh hearings were so idiotic and irrelevant, that I wouldn’t be able to resist waxing sarcastic!

We have written plenty about the ass show that was the actual hearing.

There was drama and unhinged screeching.

There was Cory Booker pretending to be a progressive hero by releasing SOOPER SEEKRIT DOKUMINTS that had already been cleared for release the previous day, and LARPing an extremist proglodyte.

And there were stupid questions. SOOOOOOOOOOOO many stupid questions!

The Kavanaugh hearings were a cornucopia of imbecilic trolling, irrelevant potato derp, and obvious political grandstanding.

Should a president be able to use his authority to pressure executive or independent agencies to carry out directives for purely political purposes?

Well, you mentally deficient clod…

Probably not a very good way to start a reply to Senator Flake, is it?

Nonetheless, that’s how I would begin my answer, and then I would continue, “A SCOTUS Justice is supposed to be free of political considerations, Senator Paramecium Brain. This is not a case that would be brought to the Supreme Court, although if it were, I would consider said case on its merits. So what you’re really asking me is what I think of President Trump’s tweets about his Attorney General. And my answer is: stick to questions about the Constitution and my ability to interpret the Law of the Land, dillhole. My views on current political events are irrelevant here.”

Will you commit to not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? Dick “Stolen Valor” Blumenthal (D-ouchebag, CT)

Will you finally admit to lying about your military service, you prevaricating fuckstick?

No, I will not commit to voting a certain way in any specific case until it comes before me and I hear all the evidence objectively.

Would you uphold the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that insurance companies provide health-care coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions?

See above, clownshoe.

Do universities have a compelling interest in admitting a diverse student body?

Boy, you were an affirmative action candidate, weren’t you?

GaryVarvel.com

It is not up to the Supreme Court of the land to decide what is in the best interest of a particular university. That would be up to them. Diversity for diversity’s sake means nothing, and it takes a large, steaming dump on achievement, drive, innovation, and actual intelligence. If I were a university, I certainly wouldn’t accept the village idiot merely because he, she, or whatever it identifies as on any given Tuesday, happens to be what the social justice zealots claim is a marginalized something or other. Diversity of experience makes any learning environment richer. Your definition stacks our colleges with a bunch of squealing, perpetually aggrieved bigots. If that’s what the university feels it needs, the courts should let them make that decision and let them suffer the consequences as parents who actually treasure their kids’ education and enlightenment take their tuition dollars elsewhere.

In reply to Feinstein’s gun control derp.

The issue: Feinstein probed Kavanaugh about an opinion he wrote in a gun case after the Supreme Court ruled, in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case, that the government cannot ban handguns. Kavanaugh interpreted that as applying to semiautomatic rifles, which gun control advocates call “assault weapons.”

The question: “How do you reconcile what you’ve just said with the hundreds of school shootings using assault weapons that have taken place in recent history? How do you reconcile that?”

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

“Hundreds of school shootings,” you half-baked sow?

Considering that in the 35 years between 1982 and 2017, rifles in general were used 41 times in school shootings, I think before I answer this question, you should be required to learn math!

Eat a dick.

Ms. Hernandez, why do you rarely dissent on behalf of consumers, workers, or the powerless?

Perhaps because their counsel makes a substandard case?

Should a President be required to respond to a subpoena?

Should I stress again that hypothetical questions about hypothetical cases are definitively stupid, because each case must be heard on its own merits? That’s what an objective jurist does. You, however, don’t want an objective judge. you want someone who will rubberstamp your pathetic agenda and legislate from the bench, as well as do what Queen von Pantsuit couldn’t do: stop the presidency of Donald Trump. You want someone who will reverse the results of the 2016 election. Fuck you.

And by the way, Senator, the fact that according to Ted Cruz, Kavanaugh and Obama’s unsuccessful SCOTUS pick Merrick Garland voted together 93 percent of the time while they were on the DC Circuit Court, and Garland joined about 96 percent of the published opinions authored by Kavanaugh, and you hysterically oppose Kavanaugh, while lauding Garland, tells me you have no interest in the ensuring that a quality justice gets seated on the nation’s highest court. It tells me that the only thing you actually give a damn about is sticking your greasy finger in the eye of Trump.

And I have no interest in being your greasy finger.

Now, do you see why I could never be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice? Putting aside my lack of qualifications for the position, I simply couldn’t tolerate the full turnip dildory that has been the Kavanaugh hearings this past week.

(Featured image courtesy of: IJR.com https://ijr.com/2018/09/1121107-scotus-kavanaugh-hearing-day-one/)

Written by

Marta Hernandez is an immigrant, writer, editor, science fiction fan (especially military sci-fi), and a lover of freedom, her children, her husband and her pets. She loves to shoot, and range time is sacred, as is her hiking obsession, especially if we’re talking the European Alps. She is an avid caffeine and TWD addict, and wants to own otters, sloths, wallabies, koalas, and wombats when she grows up.

5 Comments
  • Cameron says:

    How about having a box of gummi dicks on hand for your hearing?

    “Judge Hernandez, how would you rule on this hypothetical case?”
    “Hold on Senator. Let me reach into this bag. Here you are. Bon Appetit.

    • Marta Hernandez says:

      That is a brilliant idea, sir! I might go to law school just so I can do this.

      But wait… I have school. Never mind.

  • Robin H says:

    Oh my! Someone once told me I should run for the local school board. I laughed in her face! This would be me in the meetings! And I’ve been working from home for so long there’s no way I would be able to sit in an office for even a half day! My mouth has no filter! My dog is very entertained.

    • GWB says:

      Yeah, I’d end up getting into a fight somewhere along the way. Or resort to Marta’s sort of language (though without her distinct talent) and get thrown out of all the meetings. 🙂

  • GWB says:

    I wouldn’t be able to resist waxing sarcastic!
    Oh, Marta, darling…. while the sarcasm might do you in, it’s when you began excoriating Booker with that talented vocabulary of yours that would definitely do you in. 🙂

    mentally deficient clod… Senator Paramecium Brain … dillhole
    Yep, you managed it in just one reply, in just one paragraph. :))

    Will you commit to not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?
    “Well, Senator, in the actual case of Roe v Wade , the majority opinion is poorly argued in law, based on untrue science, and not founded on the Constitution. So, I would not have voted with the majority in that case. However, that has no bearing on what future cases might bring before me, and precedent does have its weight. But, honestly, since I disdain what they call ‘lawfare’, I think ‘voting to overturn’ is your job. Or did you lose your pocket copy of the Constitution?”

    why do you rarely dissent on behalf of consumers, workers, or the powerless?
    Because my job is not to ADVOCATE for ANYONE, but to hold up lower court decisions to the light of the Law and the Constitution, regardless of the “oppressed” or aggrieved status of any plaintiff or defendant.

    You want someone who will reverse the results of the 2016 election.
    Well, yes and no. Honestly, they want someone who will back their quest for power over the masses, regardless of the 2016 election. Even if they get Trump out, they still want a court that will help them RULE the American people, not represent them.

    Excellent post, Marta. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram